Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has been very unhappy about the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden from the very beginning. Now the head of the powerful House Intelligence Committee has become one of several personalities at the heart of the NSA leak scandal to lash out at one of the journalists publishing stories about the documents.

Rogers was apparently referring to Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, although he didn't name him. Rogers said he got the information that Greenwald was charging for stories from "other nations' press services."

Speaking on Twitter, Greenwald dismissed Rogers' claim as an attempt to instill fear among journalists who cover national security. "The main value in bandying about theories of prosecuting journalists is the hope that it will bolster the climate of fear for journalism," he wrote.

Greenwald has described his arrangements with other media that have published NSA-related stories as standard freelancing agreements in which he's paid for his journalistic help with the stories. Speaking to Politico after the hearing, Greenwald specifically denied ever selling documents.

Contacted by Ars, a spokesperson for Rogers declined to provide any evidence or make any on-the-record statement about selling documents.

During the hearing, Rogers pressed FBI Director James Comey to say Greenwald's behavior was criminal. But Comey didn't quite take the bait.

“To the best of your knowledge, fencing stolen material—is that a crime?” Rogers asked Comey.

“It would be,” Comey said. He added that it would be “complicated” in a situation if the person in question was involved in newsgathering, because of "First Amendment implications."

Comey continued: "If you’re a newspaper reporter, and you’re hawking stolen jewelry, it’s still a crime," but a journalist selling access to information would be a "harder question."

Is there any evidence that Snowden has profited at all from his actions? He walked away from a very well paying job, and by all evidence I've seen gave away his documents to journalists.

You could argue that Greenwald et al. have made a profit, but only because people are buying their papers, I have seen no evidence that he is charging other papers for access to the leaked documents. Even if he is, he didn't steal the documents, the US has no official secrets act, and he can distribute them to whomever and however he wants, even if that means charging for access to them.

Rogers is somehow managing to argue that information wants to be free, so Greenwald shouldn't be charging for access, but also that information shouldn't be free and it should go back down the memory hole.

Further keeping it classy, Representative Rogers wishes to inform us that, while the people who 'are in the business of prosperity on the internet' support CISPA, those 14 year old tweeters just don't get it.

Do politicians and government officials realize that pointing their fingers and blaming the messangers that blow the whistle on the governments illegal activities is completely childish? At least that's the way it comes across to me...

Shame on Director Comey, though: answering a question about the First Amendment is not "complicated." It's a somewhat famous part of the Constitution he is sworn to uphold, not a pesky inconvenience. The correct response to Rogers' scumbaggery would have been "If you're trying to insinuate that a professional reporter doing his job is the same as a fence dealing in stolen property, you are dead wrong according to the law, sir."

Rogers calls a reporter exercising First Amendment privileges a "thief" while protecting the felonies of James Clapper who outright lied to Congress under oath. I hope that tells everyone what sort of per^H^H^Hscumbag Mike Rogers is.

What school did he go to where he thinks that a thief and a fence are the same thing?

Hey now. Let's all be generous here & give this dedicated public servant the benefit of the doubt!

To start with, the fellow is a hard-scrabble elected representative from a struggling Rust Belt state after all, A review of his (& his spouses) background make it plain that he & his campaign committee have had the opportunity to accept "questionably sourced funding" from so many different avenues of criminal enterprise that even an intelligent person could be forgiven for getting confused. And I didn't research very deeply, but I didn't come across anything that would lead me to believe that he actually graduated from a school anyway!

Besides, $2.00 says he's never read a word Glen Greenwald has ever written about anything, so how could he possibly be expected to know what the hell he's talking about?

Our family, nominally Republican, is represented by this imbecile. We have all agreed not to vote for him again. Not in a primary or general election. Whoever his opponent is, we will vote for them. We are also considering how we can ge come more active in replacing him, ie recall or direct support of his competitor, than in just casting our ballots against him.

What a mess DC is. The party that used to stand for some kind of responsibility, is now colluding with its opponents to give illegal aliens a free pass and now voiceficeriously supports 4th-amendment busting surveillance, instead of standing on principle and holding its opponent's feet to the fire, it is now actively conspiring with them.

This is how a party loses broad-based support and dies as a political force.

Rogers is somehow managing to argue that information wants to be free, so Greenwald shouldn't be charging for access, but also that information shouldn't be free and it should go back down the memory hole.

And Greenwald claims that he only charges for the time he uses in preparing the article etc - I'm guessing that Rogers does the same? (is paid for his time doing work? Or does Rogers work without a pay?)

Rogers is somehow managing to argue that information wants to be free, so Greenwald shouldn't be charging for access, but also that information shouldn't be free and it should go back down the memory hole.

And Greenwald claims that he only charges for the time he uses in preparing the article etc - I'm guessing that Rogers does the same? (is paid for his time doing work? Or does Rogers work without a pay?)

It seems to me when Snowden approached those "other nations' press services" with a proposition to release the material they told him to take a walk. Now that the stuff is out in the open, they want a piece of the pie to drive some clicks to their sites. Pay up or shut up then.

What's more disturbing is that those in power keep getting coverage and spreading FUD without an option for debate.

All we hear is "it's wrong", we gotta stop it, bla bla bla, but it's been what, almost 9 months since the story broke out? What havce they been doing during these 9 months? Thinking of a better way to say "it's wrong"? Talk about a cushy job.

It's well known that the Congressional Republicans, particularly the leadership, is composed variously of delusional fuckwits, pandering tools, and/or outright fascists. These lunatics and collaborators do not actually seem to represent the average self-identifying "Republican" that responds to polls, but instead they have landed in these positions through a quirk of the party's own primary campaigns.

I hope they fix that soon, because having just two large parties is quite bad enough; it doesn't help when one of them is run by mental patients and assholes.

Good thing Greenwald is living here in Brazil. Because, you know, we are a very young democracy counting from 1988, and we still need and like journalists that show our politicians errors so we can FIX them. (and yes, I do agree we have a hard time fixing our problems, won't argue with that).

Good thing Greenwald is living here in Brazil. Because, you know, we are a very young democracy counting from 1988, and we still need and like journalists that show our politicians errors so we can FIX them. (and yes, I do agree we have a hard time fixing our problems, won't argue with that).

Good thing Greenwald is living here in Brazil. Because, you know, we are a very young democracy counting from 1988, and we still need and like journalists that show our politicians errors so we can FIX them. (and yes, I do agree we have a hard time fixing our problems, won't argue with that).

Every democracy needs journalists to shine light on corruption.

and thats probably the reason why the US is dismantling privacy and started punishing and intimidating journalists and whistleblowers.

Each branch of the government was supposed to enforce checks and balances on the other. Now, years later, one side can't point out the long term failures of the other without admitting their own malfeasance. And everyone knows the best way to hide your own incompetence is to find someone else to blame.

Republican Politicians "will likely continue to be dominated by wingnuts seemingly genetically engineered from the DNA of Satan and Zippie the Pinhead" as demonstrated by the reiteration of the excreta that fills the void between Rogers ears.

Aha, so a journalist being paid as a freelancer is "selling documents for money", but a politician getting paid tax dollars to undermine the constitution is "serving the american public". It's all so clear now.

These politicians need to wake up. Their decade of doing whatever they wanted to do in the name of "national security" is over - it was over as soon as we found out about it, which leads me to believe it wouldn't have lasted near as long as it has without the secret court ("which no one can see but it is totally legal trust me I'm a politician"). Time to start serving the public interest, fellas.

The problem here, the checks and balances on the NSA are not functioning. I don't see the current administration doing much to change that either. So quit trying to make this a political debate, it seems both parties are reluctant to change current behavior.

It's well known that the Congressional Republicans, particularly the leadership, is composed variously of delusional fuckwits, pandering tools, and/or outright fascists. These lunatics and collaborators do not actually seem to represent the average self-identifying "Republican" that responds to polls, but instead they have landed in these positions through a quirk of the party's own primary campaigns.

I hope they fix that soon, because having just two large parties is quite bad enough; it doesn't help when one of them is run by mental patients and assholes.

You are wrong about that. Both parties are being paid off by the same lobbyists. Americans are living in a totalitarian state controlled by those with the deepest pockets. It doesn't matter who you vote for. Except for a few talking points the outcome will always be the same.

The problem here, the checks and balances on the NSA are not functioning. I don't see the current administration doing much to change that either. So quit trying to make this a political debate, it seems both parties are reluctant to change current behavior.

The biggest problem is that those in power are virtually immune and everybody else must be careful they don't take too big a breath lest they violate some obscure law.

I would investigate the Senator to see if he took any honorariums to speak at hosted events, but I'm pretty sure in my belief that they all do. Without impugning his reputation, I will say that a bribe is a bribe when asked for my personal interpretation as to what an honorarium is. But one thing I do know is that when the STOCK Act was gutted, which enabled the staff of Congressmen to not have to report the profits from their insider trading, it was a unanimous vote.